Leonard Yerkes opened the meeting a little after
Leonard Yerkes, John Caesar, Steve Cleaves, Karen Reneau, Patricia Leigh (filling in for Alan Fahnestock), Dick Volckmann (to present his proposal), Don Fitzpatrick (conference phone), and Linda McWhirter (to write the minutes).
Leonard facilitated the meeting and stated the three main topics to be addressed: the management proposal, the road issue, and “other”?
The stated goal was to make a recommendation to the board on how to define the management job (job description, etc.) how to compensate the position(s), and how to go about acquiring a person qualified for it.
Leonard felt it was important to deal with the 3 issues separately; for example not letting budget concerns influence our job description, etc.
Is this a good job description for a qualified candidate?
How do we compensate in order to attract capable people?
How will we seek candidates?
Dick then summarized his proposal and job description(s). As was submitted to the board previously, the proposal recommended the job to be divided into 2 main managerial positions (separate from the bookkeeping/office position). The General Manager (who reports to the Board of Directors) would oversee/manage the water system, pool, garbage facility, roads, community sewer system, fire protection system, accounting, architectural committee, community administration, ETC. The Operations Manager (sometimes referred to as “Maintenance Manager” (who reports to the General Manager) would provide more of the “hands on” duties of physically maintaining and doing routine repairs for the community pool, campground, garbage facility, road system (grading, emergency snowplowing, sanding, etc.), signs, gates, etc.
Dick also felt that Edelweiss should get out of the snowplowing business due to equipment repair costs, and possible liability costs. He felt we need to research who would best serve our needs and try and get a flat fee regardless of snowfall. Some years we would pay more relative to snowfall; some years we would pay less. Karen brought up the fact that our snowfall can be drastically different year to year, and because of this would need to have the same company plowing for us for around 10 years to make it work.
Dick felt that if Edelweiss was not involved in snowplowing and only did sanding (possibly…depending on our tractor condition), that we would have an additional $60,000 (savings from repairs and wages for snowplowing) for salary purposes.
In response to Leonard’s question on how this proposal/job description was different than previous years Dick responded that it IS sort of the same, except now, thanks to John, we are getting involved more in outside projects and looking more toward the future in that respect (water/roads/cattle fences, etc.). In the past, Rich did everything and the job became too large. When John came on board, Rich continued to help with plowing, etc., which are additional paid hours and not part of the Manager’s job description. So creating 2 positions for managing, and no longer being involved in snowplowing would be 2 main changes. John also added that now Karen and Linda have the bookkeeping/office tasks under control, which was another aspect of the manager’s job when Rich was here. He added that under the past system, with one manager, the main problem was the “365/24/7 monkey on the back” aspect of the job, the concern about taking a vacation, or making a doctor appointment wondering if a leak, or other possible catastrophe will occur. Creating 2 management positions, (3 if you count Linda & Karen), allows the monkey to jump around a bit and not get too heavy on one person’s back.
Leonard referred to Dick as a consultant in terms of his ability to make recommendations and asked him to share his past job experiences that would support his ability to make his proposals. Dick discussed his management experience on geological projects, yacht brokering, and 20 years of property management dealing with rentals, maintenance, and supervision of 4-10 employees.
Don Fitzpatrick wished to make a motion to accept the two proposals to be brought to the Board, that we create the two positions as manager, and that we get out of the snowplowing business. The motion was seconded and passed.
Steve asked if we should submit a funding suggestion. Don said that should be left to the board. Leonard mentioned (I think it was Leonard?) that if we choose a different strategy for funding, (i.e. bonds, etc.) then maybe the LRP Committee could look at it.
Steve mentioned that the board would want the total costs for the 3 positions.
He also asked Dick to elaborate on the “pro’s” of his proposal. Some “pro’s’ that were brought up were:
1. ease of transition if one person leaves (other 2 fill in)
2. each person has his/her own focus, does not have to do the other’s job (but can help each other occasionally if needed
3. being part of a team provides emotional support, adds more ideas/expertise, and (see #1 & #2)
4. General Manager will be more free to have time to go above and beyond what the job has previously been, finding grants for metering,& working on long range projects to improve the community, ETC.
John and Pat both mentioned the need for some sort of job evaluations. John added that would have been really helpful for him.
Leonard brought up the Karen’s concern about the position being salaried vs. hourly. Karen felt the job is evolving, and because it varies so, depending on the season and circumstance, it would be helpful to at least temporarily base it on an hourly wage. Don strongly recommended it be salaried, and Leonard, Dick, and John concurred. Some felt it took time away from real management to tally hours, some felt you keep costs down with salary, that you are paying for the responsibility of the job, etc. Steve felt we could do it based on salary, but keep track of time to see how the job evolves.
John and Karen said there were things missing from the job description, such as the upcoming capital improvements, etc. Steve asked that we add grant writing and administration of road and water upgrades to the list.
Leonard brought up the road issue and asked the status of the votes, etc. Linda said so far 104 ballots have been returned out of 288 lot owners. The results so far will be kept mum so as not to influence the remaining votes.
Steve was concerned that we need a good strategy for presenting the issue at the annual meeting. The question was brought up whether people should be able to change their votes. It was generally agreed that would be okay. Linda will keep tallies on a spread sheet for each lot.
Steve asked Dick to double check on some budget numbers (snowplowing, etc.) and provide some other information for the board, pro’s and con’s of 2 jobs, etc. for it to be presented to the board. There will be an “emergency” board meeting on Tuesday, the 15th. (time? place?)
The meeting was adjourned around
Respectfully submitted, Linda McWhirter, Administrative Assistant
Jim began the meeting by explaining the background of the LRP Committee. He brought up the point that EMC has issues beyond our capabilities to plan for, hence the hiring of Mel Hartwig to assess our needs (water upgrades, roads, trails, dust control, etc.) and come up with a plan to address them.
Water: Mel explained that in ’95 a plan for our water system was put before the Dept. of Health, and in ’96 a major upgrade (part of the plan) was done. The recent completion of the storage tank is everything we need to do for full build-out of the community. However, Mel has outlined a number of revisions needed to upgrade the system in order to prevent inevitable pressure, flow, and leak problems. Jim said we have enough money in our water account to pretty closely cover our first 4 priorities (see Mel’s Water Model – Full Build-out, Revision #1)
Karen mentioned it is more cost effective to do everything at once, contractors will give better prices for a larger project, and we can save on future price increases. Mel also brought up the fact that there are some low-interest loans available (i.e. through the Electric Co-op) who we will work with anyway as they have a plan to replace and upgrade electric lines, so the cost of some of our excavation work for laying new water lines will be covered.
Roads: John
mentioned that Mel has provided us with a “Cadillac” plan for our
roads/culvert repair/trails, etc. and that we can scale it down to a
“Subaru”.
Jim was concerned about the safety of a narrow chip seal on blind turns, but Mel assured him that the road surface on the curves would be chip sealed wide enough for two cars to pass, as construction equipment would need that width to make the turns. Jim also asked Mel if putting up a concrete curb to separate the road from the pedestrian trail would be possible, but Mel said no, the roads are not wide enough and widening them adds a huge extra cost, even if we could take property from the lot owners for such a purpose.
Speeding concerns were also expressed. More signage and peer pressure was suggested.
John and others also suggested a larger, non refundable bond to help defray the costs of maintaining our roads.
John mentioned that
The Big Picture
(water/roads):
Don agreed with Karen that it’s best to do it all at once and do it right (“now” meaning 3 years), the whole package being around $1,000,000.00. Assessments were again brought up, maybe over 4 years, along with financing the project with a loan. Karen mentioned that another benefit of the upgrades would be the huge pressure taken off of management in the future.
It was generally agreed upon that the priority (for the water upgrades) was 1-4, and the first priority (replacing Cassal Well line) should be done this fall. John added his desire to fix the ditches/drainage at the entry.
In terms of priorities for roads, Phase I would be
John mentioned that our budget is a MAINTENANCE budget, not meant for the big upgrades we are needing to do. Karen suggested a line of credit loan so we are only paying interest on the money we spend. We could assess road fees, or have assessments. Steve felt assessments would give people the feeling that they had some choice in the matter. It was suggested that Mel give us some firmer figures and we could later decide on whether to create fees or assessments. Mel said that because contractors are so busy now, he couldn’t get any real numbers until January.
Karen will look into financing options, i.e. low interest loans, etc.
The meeting then ended around
PS…later Jim expressed some reservations about the chip seal approach, fearing the speed issue could jeopardize our road vision.
The third LRP Committee meeting was attended by Jim McDonald, Steve Cleaves, Leonard Yerkes, and John Caesar. Prospective new member, Don Fitzpatrick, was unable to attend, and Linda McWhirter was visiting grandkids.
Roads
Fred Cooley, a Civil Engineer with expertise in geology, roads, septic, and site planning, was present as a result of Jim’s invitation to listen to our road vision and provide an analysis. After driving through the community, Fred was asked to prepare a cost estimate to study and prepare an analysis on the most cost effective means to meet our Road Vision Statement. Jim will follow up on when this will occur.
The following is the Road Vision Statement that we have come up with so far:
Edelweiss Road
Vision:
The
2. Roads will be
designed with at least one shoulder with space for pedestrians and bicycles.
3. Roads will be
designed to slow vehicle speed down (traffic calming) to the posted speed limit
of (10-15mph?)
4 .Roads will be
designed for water runoff and with ditches (maintained free of brush and
debris).
5. Roads will be
designed for ease of snow removal.
6. Roads will be
designed to minimize dust.
If not all work can
be accomplished at once due to funding limits, the sections of raod with the
highest traffic volume will be worked first.
Water Fee Proposal
A new water fee schedule was proposed for Board approval, that if ratified, would be presented to the membership at the annual meeting. It would bring water fees more in line with reality and better reflect what occurs in other municipalities/developments.
The proposal suggests all developed lots will receive 84,000 gallons a year, with the monthly fee being $18/mo. for the first year, and $20/mo. for the second. If more than the 84,000 gallons is used per year, the excess amount would be billed at $.01/gal. Meter readings would occur in the Fall and in the Spring.
Sewer System
Discussion and plans were made to look into the possibility of having all liabilities of the EMC sewer system transferred to the County. (Edelweiss currently collects the hook-up fees and holds that money in an account the feeling is that the county should be taking this on, not Edelweiss). The advantage / disadvantage of transferring all liabilities to the County:
*It would eliminate the risk of Edelweiss mismanagement of the funds we have collected (around $150,000 at present), and the risk of our reserve funds not being sufficient to handle needed upgrades which might result in unknown/unplanned financial strains on EMC. It would also eliminate the time necessary to manage these funds.
*The disadvantage might be the loss of input and limited control the EMC has with regard to our common areas. For example, the County could develop structures, etc. not conducive to the esthetic concerns of our residents.
Steve Cleaves will work with the County the next four months to try to achieve this transfer of liability.
The meeting then ended.
Long
February
20, 2006
Q1: How can we free more monies to afford the capital improvement needs of Edelweiss and effectively address the concerns of our resident members?
Q2: Does our Fee Structure adequately support our correlating operating expenses?
Q3: Is our Fee Structure fair and equitably shared by all members/EMC?
Q4: Are we adequately saving for future “major” capital improvement needs?
Q5: Are we operating as efficiently as we should be?
Q6: How can we better serve our membership without placing a greater financial demand on our membership or EMC?
Preliminary Answers to these driving questions have been very interesting as our studies are quickly proving:
A1: We are gaining options but more study is necessary. This community has many desires and concerns for where we should focus our financial efforts. Dust abatement is paramount to many while others feel strongly that we need to better maintain our building infrastructures and equipment. Having compiled a large list of items that require prioritization and attention, this committee as well as the Board of Trustees has their work cut out for them. This question will continue to drive our committee efforts as we set out to address many needs with limited funding.
A2: NO – For instance, our water system study demonstrates an outdated fee structure that does not meet the financial and operational needs of our water system infrastructure. As a result, a significant portion of our “annual dues” is needed to maintain our water system operations resulting in a shortage of funding to other infrastructure needs. Similar discrepancies have been identified in the other income/expense categories of snow plowing and road maintenance. An important consideration will be given to our “annual dues” in the future. What should our annual dues be supporting and what shouldn’t they be supporting? How do we fix it?
A3: NO – Solid data demonstrates that our fee structures may not be equitably shared by our members and/or EMC. For instance, some residences consume much more water than others yet pay the same flat fee. The resulting fact is that those who consume more water pay less per gallon. To make matters worse, some part time residences consume more water than full time residences yet pay a much reduced flat fee based solely on their administrative status. Other examples include snow plowing fees. As more and more residences are built, snow plowing costs to maintain roads and sanding are increasing. The current fee structure is actually placing a greater demand on EMC with each new home while per home fees have been declining year after year. Again, annual dues are being stressed as a result and funds needed for other expense areas are diminishing.
A4: NO- Our water system study demonstrates an insufficient capital reserve being saved to cover future expense while our current water fee income is insufficient to pay for the actual cost of delivering water. Operationally, we run our water system at a significant deficit while saving for future infrastructure needs is not part of our water fee structure. Granted, we do have a savings fund for our water system upgrades but its sole source of funding has come from water system hook-up charges. This funding source will eventually and possibly sooner than later be exhausted as new home constructions slow down. Additionally, the committee is probing our liabilities and responsibilities with regard to our sewer system. Currently, we do not have a firm grasp as to what our relationship to the sewer system is and to what extent the Counties authority, responsibility and liability to this system extends.
A5: NO – It is the feeling of this committee that because our income fee structure does not effectively balance with our expense line items, we are not operating as efficiently as we could from a financial perspective. Additionally, ongoing trials and experiments with regard to “dust abatement” are proving expensive with disappointing results. It is the consensus of this committee that perhaps a more cost effective approach to this problem might include some expert study and analysis of our dust problem versus the trial and error approach that we have been utilizing the past several years with considerable expense and limited effectiveness. Lastly, while we may prepare a plan to the Board to base our water usage on annual meter readings, it is the consent of this committee that before we recommend any significant changes or considerations for a particular capital improvement need, we should fully understand the entire operation to enable a clear and effective prioritization of funds and cost effective actions.
A6: We’ve got ideas! Perhaps the most exciting idea we are working on at present is a program likened to a property management service that would offer a menu of services to our membership that would be funded “ala cart” or “pay as you utilize”. This appears to be especially desirable to our “part time” residents who are faced with the challenge of distance and a need for a “one stop shop” for service. We are hearing that our membership would like to return to internal driveway plowing. You would also like a contact for emergency response or “house checking”, winterizing, home opening/closing/cleaning, even yard irrigation and maintenance. Please pass on additional service ideas that may be incorporated into this “menu of services” as we will continue to formulate this program as the year progresses.
Respectfully Submitted:
The
SUMMARY OF
Jim McDonald, John Caesar, and Linda McWhirter met for a preliminary LRP meeting to begin looking at ways to fund much needed capital improvements (roads, water system, etc.)
One of the main goals of this meeting (and future meetings) will be to analyze and make better use of our profit centers in order to fund needed capital improvements to maintain our infrastructure at an acceptable standard.
The water system, for example, should be self supporting. Rich Molz will be doing a 10 year study to look at what failures we can expect and how to pay for them. Metering will probably be the means of charging our water customers more realistic and equitable fees to support our water system upgrades and repairs.
The road issue was also discussed briefly, and will, like the water system, need to be an ongoing issue to be discussed for future committee work. Jim suggested we make the snowplowing fees more realistic to raise some of the needed revenue. In the early days of Edelweiss, when there were very few homes, it was decided that Edelweiss would pay 50%, and the homeowners the other 50%. As the community has grown, the number of homeowners sharing that 50% portion has grown, reducing their individual fees. At the same time, however, the costs of maintaining the roads (labor, equipment, number of roads to plow/grade., etc) has gone up. Jim suggested, therefore, that we begin reducing the percentage that Edelweiss pays each year by 10%, with a corresponding increase for the homeowners. So, for example, in 2007, Edelweiss pays 40%, homeowners share the 60%, until eventually the road maintenance is being subsidized completely by the homeowners.
The possibility of Edelweiss bringing in more revenue by acting as a sort of property management service was also discussed, particularly with the driveway plowing issue. Other services that could be included might be managing long term rentals for owners. The extra management fees collected could add to the needed revenue for capital improvements.
The next LRP committee meeting will be Monday, Feb. 20th
,